4.8 Article

Molecular profiling related to poor prognosis in thyroid carcinoma.: Combining gene expression data and biological information

期刊

ONCOGENE
卷 27, 期 11, 页码 1554-1561

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.onc.1210792

关键词

anaplastic thyroid cancer; functional profile; molecular signature

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Undifferentiated and poorly differentiated thyroid tumors are responsible for more than half of thyroid cancer patient deaths in spite of their low incidence. Conventional treatments do not obtain substantial benefits, and the lack of alternative approaches limits patient survival. Additionally, the absence of prognostic markers for well-differentiated tumors complicates patient-specific treatments and favors the progression of recurrent forms. In order to recognize the molecular basis involved in tumor dedifferentiation and identify potential markers for thyroid cancer prognosis prediction, we analysed the expression profile of 44 thyroid primary tumors with different degrees of dedifferentiation and aggressiveness using cDNA microarrays. Transcriptome comparison of dedifferentiated and well-differentiated thyroid tumors identified 1031 genes with > 2-fold difference in absolute values and false discovery rate of <0.15. According to known molecular interaction and reaction networks, the products of these genes were mainly clustered in the MAPkinase signaling pathway, the TGF-beta signaling pathway, focal adhesion and cell motility, activation of actin polymerization and cell cycle. An exhaustive search in several databases allowed us to identify various members of the matrix metalloproteinase, melanoma antigen A and collagen gene families within the upregulated gene set. We also identified a prognosis classifier comprising just 30 transcripts with an overall accuracy of 95%. These findings may clarify the molecular mechanisms involved in thyroid tumor dedifferentiation and provide a potential prognosis predictor as well as targets for new therapies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据